In some issues of Christian Truth during 1958 we dealt with the subject of dispensational truth which was then under attack from men who had been more or less connected with so-called fundamentalist circles where dispensationalism was valued and taught. We now feel obliged to refer to the same subject because the attacks continue, and departure from this precious God-given heritage is accelerating. We have no expectation of helping those men who have for various reasons given up this truth, but we write for those who may be misled by them.
A recent publication against the precious expectancy of the coming of the Lord to take His blood-bought, heavenly people home to he with Himself is a book entitled Backgrounds to Dispensationalism, which was written by Clarence B. Bass. He has degrees in theology, and a Ph.D. degree from the University of Edinburgh. He is one of that class who was originally brought up in dispensational truth, but who has departed from it.
Dr. Bass has not brought forth anything new as an answer to dispensational truth, nor are his arguments more convincing than those which have previously been advanced by others. There seems to be the same underlying will to reject that which for some reason seems to cut across a predetermined course. People often reject that which they are unwilling to accept, things which would he quite obvious to those with an open mind, or, in the case of God's Word, to those seeking to know the mind of God.
One of the most frequently recurring phrases in Dr. Bass's book is "historic faith." He seems to feel that because there is no record of the hope of the Lord's coming, to call His redeemed ones to Himself, to be found in the writings of the so-called church fathers. it cannot be true. But this is illogical on the face of it; for a search of the writings of the church fathers will not prove anything, but that they were almost without exception in error. Some of them were not even sound on the deity of Christ, and it is vain to rely on the church fathers for any truth. Departure and declension were coming in rapidly before the apostles left the scene. How good it is for us that God did not cast us on them, or on any pretended successors to the apostles, for the truth of God. In view of his departure Paul committed the saints to God and to the Word of His grace (Acts 2014And when he met with us at Assos, we took him in, and came to Mitylene. 15And we sailed thence, and came the next day over against Chios; and the next day we arrived at Samos, and tarried at Trogyllium; and the next day we came to Miletus. 16For Paul had determined to sail by Ephesus, because he would not spend the time in Asia: for he hasted, if it were possible for him, to be at Jerusalem the day of Pentecost. 17And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church. (Acts 20:14‑17)), and cast Timothy on the truth he had taught him, and on the Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:14-1714But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3:14‑17)). John, in view of the apostasy, took the saints back to that "which was from the beginning," not to church fathers. Peter likewise did not refer to successors, but sought to have the saints keep in remembrance that which they had received.
And if we go back to Scripture and refer to the parable of the ten virgins in Matt. 25, we find that from the beginning these professors (some real and some false) took their lamps (symbols of profession) and went forth to meet the bridegroom. Here, in unmistakable clarity, these professors at the beginning started out expecting the immediate coming of the bridegroom. That this was true in early Christianity is abundantly clear from many scriptures. The Thessalonians turned to God from idols "to wait" for His Son from heaven. There was no disposition to reject the imminence of the Lord's coming in those days. But we read of an "evil servant" who said in his heart, "My lord delayeth his coming" (Matt. 24:4848But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; (Matthew 24:48)). The basic fault was "in his heart"; he preferred to put it off because he did not desire to meet him. Perhaps this same evil is at work today.
The ten virgins were not at fault in this way, but they ALL went to sleep; that is, they forgot to wait and watch for their coming bridegroom. They at first wearied and became drowsy and then lost the hope of the Lord's return. They settled down in the world to live with and as the world. This continued for a long time, for they required an arousing call "at midnight" to awaken them. In view of our Lord's own parable to describe things after He left them, is it surprising that religious writers for century after century made no mention of the hope of the Lord's coming to claim His redeemed ones? The lack of such statements from the church fathers, and from all theological writers until the early part of the 19th century, is merely proof of the accuracy of our Lord's parable. It was necessary that the hope be lost and then finally revived to fulfill the scriptures. Thus, the evidence cited by Dr. Bass and others to prove that the Lord's coming cannot be truth because it was so long not mentioned, is but proof of its truth and verity.
Thank God that the parable does not say that they ever all went to sleep again; therefore His coming MUST be close at hand, for it is being given up on every side. It is coming under attack and would soon be lost, but before that can happen He will shout that shout and call us home. He will even take those real Christians who are rejecting it and opposing it-not to their disappointment at that moment, however; but how will they feel when they see His face and learn that they were really fighting against His truth?
Dr. Bass's search for supporters of his rejection of the truth of the Lord's coming for His Church leads him into some strange territory, for he makes common cause with a foremost Seventh day Adventist writer. He not only quotes from The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers by LeRoy Froom, but lauds his work; he writes thus: "LeRoy Froom's masterful survey of the history of eschatology clearly demonstrates that until the nineteenth century the church viewed Israel as having a place in the millennium, but not as a separate entity, a different kingdom, as dispensational literalism contends. Rather, Israel was viewed as a part of the continual reign of Christ instituted in the church." p. 24. Could he expect soundness of doctrine from a Seventh-day Adventist source? How could such a writer distinguish between Israel and the Church when their whole scheme is a conglomeration of Judaism with some Christianity added? And how about Dr. Bass's respect for anything an adventist could say about the Millennium when to them it will not be a time of blessing under the beneficent and righteous rule of Christ, but the earth will be a burned out cinder, with the devil the only inhabitant?
Could it be that the late Dr. Barnhouse was actuated by a similar motive when he sought to foist the Seventh-day Adventists on faithful Christians? For he also disclaimed dispensationalism, and said that he never preached on the Lord's coming.
As most of our readers are aware, dispensationalism is the understanding of the truth of the Word of God as it relates to mankind at different times. God has dealt in various ways with men and revealed Himself as He chose in each dispensation. He revealed Himself as the Almighty to Abraham when He was making promises to him-the One who promised was fully able to perform all that He promised. When He made a covenant with Israel, He revealed Himself as Jehovah-the unchanging One who would be faithful to all His covenant. After the death and resurrection of Christ, He was revealed to believers as their Father -the Son said in resurrection, "My Father, and your Father; My God, and your God." To mix such titles all up together is monstrous. To see no difference between Israel and the Church, between God's purposes and plans for them in their respective places, is to compound confusion. In such a case the language of the Psalms, crying for vengeance on enemies, would be put into the mouths of Christians-how utterly unbecoming! And while Christians have benefited from the Psalms, they are not the language of Christians; nor is God as Father known in them. This is only one small sample of the confusion which results from being unacquainted with dispensational truth. No one will ever understand the Bible apart from seeing that God has one purpose concerning Israel and the earth, and another concerning the Church and a heavenly people.
Dr. Bass frequently attacks what he calls "the dichotomy of the church-Israel relation." He sets himself in bold opposition to a distinction between the two. In one place he says, "This summary reflects again the dichotomy of the system-that there is a different hope for the church and for Israel. The hope of the church is that it will share in Christ's glory, both earthly and heavenly. The hope for Israel is the kingdom on earth with Christ seated on the throne of David." p. 132. Will Dr. Bass dare to say that Christ will not yet gather together "all things in... [Himself], both which are in heaven, and which are on earth"? And does not the next verse say to the church at Ephesus (and so to the Church at large) in whom we also have obtained an inheritance? We, the Church, are His coheirs. Our calling, our hope, and our citizenship are all heavenly. This elevated position was never true of Israel, nor is it promised to them in the future. On the basis of obedience, they were promised blessing in "basket and store"; we are blessed with every spiritual blessing in heavenly places.
Dr. Bass's battle is with Mr. J. N. Darby all through, whom he prefers to see as an adamant leader who acted independently of the scholarship of the past (we ask, If this scholarship was in error on the truth of the Lord's coming and the heavenly calling of the Church, why should he give heed to it?). He claims that "the basic elements, and hermeneutical pattern, of Darby's eschatology persist unchanged in contemporary dispensationalism." p. 128. On another page Dr. Bass says, "Darby's eschatology grows out of two basic principles: his doctrine of the church, which is itself rooted in his dispensational dichotomy between Israel and the church; and a hermeneutical application of rigid literalism, particularly to prophetic Scripture." p. 129. This rouses Dr. Bass's ire. He wants to merge Israel and the Church. But let him aver that Israel was ever called to heaven, or with a heavenly calling. And if the Church is merely a prolongation of Israel, why does he not keep the Sabbath and offer sacrifices? Israel was under the law, under a schoolmaster; are we?
The doctor's charge of "rigid literalism" is made because Mr. Darby and all Spirit-taught dispensationalists make the word "Israel" apply to Israel. And why not? Dr. Bass also attacks the late A. C. Gaebelein, saying, "Adhering to its rigid literalism and unconditional covenant, dispensationalism, however, insists that the church in no wise assumes any of Israel's relation to God; there can be no 'spiritual Israel'; and that the promises of the Abrahamic covenant are still inviolate." Then he quotes from A. C. Gaebelein in his charges, and says, "Gaebelein apparently overlooked 1 Pet. 2:99But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: (1 Peter 2:9) where the church is called a 'holy nation'." Here the ignorance of a proponent of the so-called historic faith becomes evident. Did this gentleman never read Peter's address in the first verse of the first chapter? Peter wrote to believing Jews of the dispersion. They had lost everything for the time by identifying themselves with a rejected Christ, and he merely quotes from Exod. 19:66And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. (Exodus 19:6) where God had promised Israel certain blessings on the basis of obedience (which they forfeited by disobedience), and now says to the suffering and believing Jews, You have come into blessing before the nation will. They came into these blessings in a higher and better way, far in advance of the nation. What a cheer this must have been to these oppressed Christians who had been Jews. But Dr. Bass, as all of his group, eagerly grasps at any straw to "prove" that the Christian is only an Israelite after all. Let us say firmly, that the name Israel in the New Testament never means the Church. There is no such thing as a spiritual Israel in this day. When the nation of Israel is finally blessed when Christ sets up His earthly kingdom, and Jerusalem becomes the center of God's government for the earth, Israel will be born again (see Eze. 366Prophesy therefore concerning the land of Israel, and say unto the mountains, and to the hills, to the rivers, and to the valleys, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I have spoken in my jealousy and in my fury, because ye have borne the shame of the heathen: (Ezekiel 36:6)); and they will all know God from the least to the greatest (Jer. 31:3434And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. (Jeremiah 31:34)).
Dr. Bass rejects the truth that God will yet fulfill His promises made to Abraham to establish Israel on the earth. Let us paraphrase a question Paul asked of King Agrippa, Why should it be thought a thing incredible that God should keep His promises? Is it not presumption to question God's faithfulness to His pledged word? How then does this opponent get around the difficulty he creates? Here is his answer: "The historic faith has held that the kingdom was not postponed, but fulfilled in the church, and will come to its consummation in the millennial reign." p. 33. This statement is absurd on the face of it. God had promised to send Elijah to recall Israel to their God preceding the coming kingdom (see the close of Malachi), and then John the Baptist came in that very manner; but they rejected him. The Lord Himself said, "And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come." Matt. 11:1414And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come. (Matthew 11:14). The Messiah's forerunner was rejected and so was the Messiah. The kingdom promised was offered by John and the Lord, but summarily rejected by the Jews. In Matt. 1214Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him. (Matthew 12:14), the Lord disclaimed relationship with Israel; and in chapter 13, He went out to the seaside and spoke of sowing something new. In this chapter the mysteries of the kingdom are mentioned, for the kingdom of heaven in this form is a sphere on earth where an absent and rejected king is supposedly owned; it is Christendom. If Christendom is the fulfillment of God's promises to Abraham, then God's work is a failure, speaking reverently. Dr. Bass's whole plan belittles God's purpose and promise, and lowers the Church from its heavenly calling to a mere earthly adjunct to Judaism.
This leads him to denounce the distinction between law and grace. On page 35, Dr. Bass says, "dispensationalism has constructed a system in which law and grace work against each other, not conjointly." Will he prove his point that grace and law are adjuncts? "The law... was added because of transgression." Gal. 3:1919Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. (Galatians 3:19). It came in by the way. It NEVER gave life to anyone. Paul says that it slew him (Rom. 7:1111For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. (Romans 7:11)). "The law entered, that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound." Rom. 5:2020Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: (Romans 5:20). There was sin before the law was given, but the giving of the law made it worse, for it then became an offense. God did not give the law that sin might abound-far be the thought-but that it would take on its awful character by one's breaking the law. But where sin abounded, grace over abounded, not merely where there was the offense, for then grace would have been limited to Israelitish law breakers- Gentiles were never under the Mosaic law. Is it not therefore clear that Dr. Bass and those of his school mutilate both law and grace? They are mutually opposed to each other. If you mix them, "grace is no more grace," and "work is no more work."